Vissuet v. Quality Loan Service Corp.

FRIDA VISSUET, PLAINTIFF,v.QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.; AND DOES 1-100, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ONEWEST'S MOTION TO DISMISS INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES; [Doc. No. 22]

Currently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint brought by Defendant OneWest Bank, FSB as Successor in Interest to Certain Assets and Liabilities of IndyMac Bank, FSB ("OneWest"). Having considered the parties' arguments, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion.

OneWest is the current owner of all beneficial interest under the Deed of Trust executed by Vissuet. The original lender under the Deed of Trust was PacificBanc Mortgage. (Def. RJN, Ex. A.) OneWest became the beneficial owner on July 13, 2009, through an assignment by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting as a nominee for PacificBanc Mortgage. (Id., Ex. C.) The Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded on July 23, 2009. (Id.)

Quality Loan Services is the current trustee. The original trustee under the Deed of Trust was LandAmerica Southland Title. (Id., Ex. A.) Quality Loan Services was substituted as a trustee on June 20, 2009. (Id., Ex. D.)The Substitution of Trustee was recorded on August 4, 2009. (Id.)

II. Factual Background

On July 24, 2007, Vissuet executed a Deed of Trust securing a loan in the amount of $360,000 from PacificBanc Mortgage. According to Vissuet, this was an Alternative-A loan,*fn1 and it consisted of a "refinance" of the first deed on the Property. (SAC ¶ 4.) On June 20, 2009, after Vissuet defaulted on her loan, Quality Loan Services recorded and served a Notice of Default on the Property. (See Def. RJN, Ex. B.) On September 25, 2009, Quality Loan Services recorded a Notice of Trustee's Sale of the Property in the amount of $379,660.17, setting October 15, 2009 as the date of sale. (Id., Ex. E.)

Upon receipt of the Notice of Trustee's Sale, Vissuet contacted IndyMac and requested loan modification. She was allegedly told that if she completed and submitted the loan modification application, IndyMac would postpone the trustee's sale. (SAC ¶ 9.) Vissuet alleges that based upon that promise, she completed and submitted her loan modification application. (Id. ¶ 10.) However, after Vissuet submitted the application, she was informed by IndyMac there was nothing that could be done to stop the trustee's sale of the Property. (Id.) As a result, Vissuet filed the present suit. After the action was commenced, Vissuet received in the mail two additional letters from IndyMac, dated November 2, 2009 and November 5, 2009, indicating that IndyMac was willing to work with Vissuet on a loan modification. (See, e.g., id., Ex. B.)

III. Procedural Background

Vissuet filed the present complaint on October 13, 2009, in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, alleging four causes of action. OneWest subsequently removed the case to this Court on October 19, 2009. On November 10, 2009, Vissuet moved for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") to avoid an impending trustee's sale. The Court granted the motion for TRO and scheduled a hearing on the preliminary injunction for November 23, 2009. After the hearing, the Court denied the request for preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO. [Doc. No. 12]. On December 4, 2009, Vissuet filed her First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), alleging five causes of action. Defendant OneWest subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on March 19, 2010. [Doc. No. 20]. Finally, on April 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") alleging three causes of action: (1) predatory lending; (2) breach of contract; and (3) fraud. [Doc. No. 21].

On April 23, 2010, OneWest filed the present Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 22]. Vissuet filed an opposition, and OneWest replied. [Doc. Nos. 23, 25]. The Court subsequently took the motion under ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.